Skip to main content

Full text of "Two weights, two measures [microform]"

See other formats



Collection de 


Canadian li.«tituta for Historical Micraraproductiona / Institut Canadian da microraproductiona hiatoriquaa 


Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes technique et bibliographiques 

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original 
copy available for filming. Features of this copy which 
may be bibliographicaily unique, which may alter any of 
the images in the reproduction, or which may 
significantly change the usual method of filming are 
checlted below. 










ColouTed covers/ 
Couverture de couleur 

Covers damaged / 
Couverture endoinmagee 

Covets restored and/or laminated / 
r^ouverture restaurie et/ou pelliaiMe 

Cover title missing / L^ litre de couverture manque 

Cdcured maps / Cartes geographiques en couleur 

Cokxired inK (i.e. other than lilue or txack) / 
ErKre de couleur (i.e. autre que tileue ou noire) 

Coloured plates and/or Illustrations / 
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 

Bound with other material / 
RelM avec dautres documents 

Only edition availal>le / 
Seule Mition diaponilile 

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
along Interior margin / La reliure serrie peut 
causer de Tombre ou de la distorsion le long de 
la maige int^rieure. 

Blank leaves added during restorations may appear 
within the text. Whenever possible, ttiese have 
been omitted from flming / II se peut que certaines 
pages blanches ajouties km dune restauration 
apparaissent dans le tsxle, mais, loisque cela etait 
possible, ces pages n'ont pas Me iHm^. 

AddWonal comments / 
Commentalres suppWmentalres: 

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilieur examplaire qu'il lui a 
6X6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exem- 
plaire qui sont peut-etre uniques du point de vue bibli- 
ographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, 
ou qui peuvent exiger une modifications dans la m^h- 
ode normale de f ilmage sont indiqu^s cl-dessous. 

I I Cokxired pages / Pages de couleur 

I I Pages damaged / Pages endommagdes 

I I Pages restored and/or laminated / 
' — ' Pages rsstaurees et/ou pellicuiees 

[^ Pages discokiured, stained or foxed / 
^^ Pages dtoikir^es, tachetees ou pk)uees 

I I Pages detached/ Pages detachees 

1^ Showthrough/ Transparence 

I I Quality of print varies / 

' — ' Oualite inegale de I'lmpression 

□ :^ 

Indiides supplementary material / 
Comprend du materiel suppMmentaire 

I I Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
' — ' slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
ensure the best possible image / Les pages 
totalement ou partiellement ot>scurcies par un 
feulllet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont Hi filmees 
a nouveau de fa(on a obtenir la meilleure 
Image possible. 

I I Opposing pages with varying colouration or 
' — ' discotourations are filmed twk;e to ensure the 
best possible image / Les pages s'opposant 
ayant des colorations variables ou des decol- 
orattons sont fllmtes deux fois afin d'obtenir la 
meilieur image possible. 

Ci docwmnt tit film* au trjx dt tMueiion Indiqut ei-dtiteus 

1DX 14X ItX 












Th* copy filmed hara hM bMn raproducsd tlianki 
10 th« ganarmity of: 

National Library of Canada 

L'axamplaira lUmt ful raproduit grlca 1 la 
gtniroait* da: 

Bibliothaqua nationala du Canada 

Tha imagat appaaring hara ara tha bait quality 
poMJbia comidaring tha condition and lagibiiity 
of tha original copy and in kaoping with tha 
filming contract apacificationa. 

Laa imagat tuivantaa ont M raproduita$ avae la 
plus grand loin. compta tanu da la condition at 
da la naitat* da l'axamplaira film*, at an 
conformity avac laa condition* du contrat da 

Original copioa in prinlad papor covara ara fllmad 
baginning with tha front covar and ending on 
tha last paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- 
*ion, or tha back covar whan appropriata. All 
othar original copiaa ara filmad baginning on tho 
firtt paga with a printad or illuatratad Impraa- 
•ion. and anding on tha laat paga «»ith a printad 
or illuatratad impraaaion. 

Tha laat racordad frama on aach microf Icha 
ihall contain tha symbol — » I moaning "CON- 
TINUEO"). or tho symbol ▼ (moaning "END"), 
whiehavar applioa. 

Laa aaamplairaa originaux dont la eouvarture »n 
papiar est imprimaa sont filmas en commancani 
par la premier plat at an tarminant soit par la 
dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinia 
d'Impraaaion ou d'illuatration, soit par la second 
plat, salon la eaa. Tous les autras axemplairas 
originaux sont filmia an commencant par la 
premiere paga qui comporte une empreinte 
d'Impreation ou d'illuatration at en terminant par 
la darnitra page qui comporte une tell* 

Un dee symbolaa suivants spparaltra sur la 
darni*re imege do cheque microfiche, selon le 
eaa: la symbole ^» signifle "A SUIVRE ". le 
aymbole ▼ signifle "FIN". 

Mep*. plate*, chartt. etc.. may be filmed at 
diff*rent reduction retio*. Thoi* too large to be 
entirely included in one exposure ere filmed 
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
right and top to bonom. as many frames es 
required. The following diagrams Illustrate the 

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent *ira 
filmta * da* taux da r*duction diff*rents. 
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour ttra 
reproduit en un soul clich*. 11 est film* * psrtir 
da Tangle sup*rieur gauche, de gauche * dro'ta, 
et de haut an bas, en prenant le nombre 
d'image* n*c*«saire. Lea diagrammea suivants 
illuatrant la method*. 

1 2 3 










S^ 1653 East Main Street 

TJZ Rochester. New York 14609 USA 

'^^^ (716) 482 - 0300 - Phone 

as (716) 268 - 5989 - Fax 







jl-5"i-.~-Si ■ 

Montreal, March jiid, 1904 

In tbe matter or 

Thk City ok Montrlal, 

Petitioner in respect of the improir- 
ment 0/ the approaches to Wel- 
lington Btiiige on the Xvrth Side; 

The acquisition oi the property of 
Dame Marj^aret Brennaii, widow 
of the late Michael Patrick Ryan, 
in his lifetime of the City of Mont- 
real, Esquire, and Collector of Her 
Majesty's Customs at the Port of 
Montreal : 

The said Makgaket Hrennan Rva? 


Proprietor of Lot No. 1414 of the 
Official Plan and Book of Refer- 
ence of St. .4nf'i Ward in the 
.laid City of Montreal. 

To THE Honorable L. O. David, 

City Clerk of the City of Montreal. 

Dear Sir,— The und<;rsjgi.ed beg, respect- 
fully, to make to you the following report 
in regard to the proceedings herein: — 

1. Mrs. Ryan is the owner of vacant land 
in St. Ann's Ward, in the City of Montreal, 
adjac-nt to the Wellington Bridge, bounded 
on one side by St. Leon Street, on another 
side by McCord Street, on a third side by 
Olier Street, and on the fourth side by the 
prc^rty of Peter Donovan, Esquire, — said 
piecr. of land being No. 1414 on the said 
Official Plan, and comprising, according to 
ror^surements ma>le by the City of Montreal, 
33,082 square feet, of which the City is 
seeking to acquire from the proprietor, 
32,058 square feet. 

2. The City applied to the Court by 
petition, for the appointment of Commis- 


sionen to value the said land, and asked 
that the Recorder of the City of Montreal, 
and A. Langevin, and John Hamilton Ferns, 
two of the Assessors and employees of the 
said City should be the three Commissioners 
on behalf of the City, and they were accord- 
ingly appointed. The undersigned were 
appointed the Commissioners on behalf of 
Mrs. Ryan. 

3. At the first meeting of the ssid Com- 
n)issioners on the 13th January, 1904, Coun- 
sel for Mrs. Ryan took exception to the 
jurisdiction of the Commission and filed, 
in writing, the following protest: 

" On behalf of the udd Petitioner, Mn. Rju, 
the undenigned reipectflilly except to the jurisdic- 
tion of the CommlHion to fix the price to be paid 
for the property of the laid Petitioner to be taken 
by the City of Montreal for the improvement of 
the approaches to Wellington Street Bridge on the 
north side. 

MoMTUAl., ijthjimnary, 1904. 


Attorneys for Petitioner." 


No votf wa> taken as to whether this 
exception was well founded or not, but the 
Recorder ruled that there .as jurisdiction 
and required the parties to proceed. 

4- Counsel for the proprietor then called 
the attention of the ( -mmissioners to the 
law under which the acquisition of this 
property was authorized, namely, 3 Edward 
VII., chapter '2, section 52, subsection 16, 
and pointed out that no part of the said Act 
cor'tained any authorization to tht Com- 
missioners to determine the amount that 
should be paid for the p perty to the Pro- 
prietor, and that the pr ..sions of the City 
Charter applicable to expropriations in the 
Reneral interest, namely Articles 421 ,n 445, 
were not applicable to the presei- case 
(which was an excepted case)— the statute 
simply authorizing the City to make the 
improvements, the cost of which would be 
approximately, $15,672.00 and tc purchase 
the land at the market value of land in the 

5. Counsel for the Proprietor, therefore, 
asked the Commissioners to state whether 
iu determining the market vaue of the land, 
they felt themselves in any way bound by 
the sum mentioned ($15,672.00), for the 
cost of the improvement. Counsel, there- 
upon read the section, subsection 16 of the 
jaid Act 3, Edward VII., chapter 62, sec- 
tion 52, which is as follows: 

" To improve the approaches to Wellington 
bridge on the north side, in accordance with the 
plan marked Y, and deposited in the office of the 
citjr surveyor, at an approximate cost of $15,673.00. 

The cost of such improvement shall be paid two- 
fifth b/ the proprietors of St. Ann's Ward, and the 
other three-fifths by the city, the amount to be paid 
for the property to be the market value of the property 
in that vicinity, 

6. The undersigned there and then ex- 
pressed the opinion that all they had to do, 
assuming they had jurisdiction, was to de- 
termine the market value of the property 
which the City was seeking to acquire, 
uninfluenced by the consideration that the 


City was authorized to expend $15,672 as 
the cost of the improvement. 

7. The Recorder, on behalf of himself 
and the other Commissioners appointed 
by the City, declined to make any 
decision upon that question, stating that it 
might turn out to be unnecessary so to do 
after hearing the evidence. The Recorder 
further stated that there was a judgment 
of the Court ordering them to proceed and 
that they must go forward with the evi- 

8. Counsel for the Proprietor then stated 
that, of course, his client must submit to 
the ruling, but that it must be understood 
that they proceeded under reserve of all 
their rights, and under the exception filed. 

9. No evidence was taken that day (13th 
January), and the consideration of Mrs. 
Ryan's case was not resumed until the 2nd 
oay of February, the three other cases hav- 
ing been heard in the meantime. 

,?;''• J""' N*on, archie. „? o 

Aft«,- «,«j • P™Perty m the vicinity 
dnles. they each swore that having reS'd 
Son^rt 7 °;.P-Pe'^y >" the vicfnity.^S 

feet oMalT' "'•^'^'^ '^'' ^'^ 32.058 square 
leet Of land would amount to "R^c fi.^ .„ 
to which they added ?25,646.4o, 

"for,o7.2o,i„. feet of rough fence ,„ 
enclose theresidueofthe lot at f..2r « ,„ _ 

->^ing,totauu.of....!';:^ ',^;^4^-.. 

behalf o ^h Tv' ' ^''""^ ^'^° '^^"-d on 
Dehalf of the City, signed the statement 

bm he was not examined under oath in th"s 



Mr Nelson, who was the principal wit- 
ness for the City, admitted, on cross- 
exammation, that a neighbouring property 
The Steel & Paint Works, used^^for ^2^ 
factunng purposes, had been purchased at 
^^■73 per square foot, for the land, exclu- 
sive of some buildings erected upon it, and 
for the other part, at $2.45 per square foot 
for the land, including old buildings upon 
>t. Mr. Nelson, in addition, on cross- 
examination, made the important statement 
that the Steel & Paint property was only 
1,000 feet distant from the property of Mrs' 
Ryan, that Mrs. Ryan's property, as to situ- 
ation, proximity, adaptability for develop- 
ment and size, had a greater resemblance 
to the Steel & Paint property than any other 
property in the vicinity, and he also estab- 
hshed that the purchase of the Steel & Paint 
properties took place at or about the date 
of the passing of the Act, 3 Edward VII 
chapter 62, section 52, subsection 16 au- 
thorizing the acquisition of the property in 

question, and that he knew of no other sales 
of property in the vicinity that had taken 
place at or about the date of the Act au- 
tnonzing the purchase in this case, except 
the sales and purchases of the Steel & Paint 

Apart from Mr. Chartrand, who gave 
evidence on the same lines as Mr. Nelson, 
no other witnesses were called for the City 
and the Proprietor then proceeded to make 
her proof. 

II. Among the witnesses examined for 
Mrs. Ryan, and who valued her property 
according to the standard prescribed in the 
Statute, namely, the market value of the 
property in the vicinity, were:— 

I. Bernard Tansey, Esquire, a large pro- 
prietor of real estate in the City of Mont- 
real, who valued the property at from $1.25 
to $1.50 per square foot. 

II. Henry Ward, a real estate agent of 
large experience, with an intimate know- 

ledge of sales of property in the vicinity, 
who valued it at from $1.25 to $1.50 per 
square foot. 

III. G. W. Parent, a real estate agent of 
large experience, with an intimate know- 
ledge of the sales in the vicinity, and a 
gentleman who has frequently acted as a 
rommissioner to value property in different 
parts of the City. He valued the property 
at from $1.25 to $1.50 per square foot. 

IV. A. E. Merrill, also a real estate 
agent of experience, who valued the pro- 
perty at frc.n $1.25 to $1.50 per square foot. 

V. Kenneth Blackwell, the President of 
the Canada Steel Company, to wit, the 
Company which purchased the land of the 
like character and Hke situation in the im- 
mediate vicinity, for in part, $1.73 per 
square foot, exclusive of buildings, and in 
part, $2.45 per square foot, inclusive of 
buildings. He valued Mrs. Ryan's land at 
$1.25 per square foot. 

VI. Charles F. Smith, the head of The 
James McCready Co., Limited, a Director 
of the Merchants Bank and a manufacturer 
of very large experience, who, with others, 
testified that Mrs. Ryan's land was exceed- 
ingly w.ell situated for manufacturing and 
commercial purposes, possessing accessibil- 
ity on three sides and ught from three 
streets that bounded it, as well as from 
Gallery Square opposite it. He testified 
that the property was admirably situated 
for a manufacturing establishment and was 
worth $1.25 per square foot. 

VII. James Reid Wilson, of the firm of 
Thos. Robertson & Co., a Director of the 
Canada Steel Company, who, personally, 
made the purchases of the land referred to 
for the Steel Company, a gentleman largely 
connected with manufacturing business and 
familiar with the value of land in the vicin- 
ity, testified to the adaptability of Mrs. 
Ryan's property for manufacturing and 
commercial purposes owing to its accessibil- 


ity on three sides and the certainty of good 
light from the open character of the sur- 
roundings-a street on each of three sides 
and an open square in front. 

Mr. Wilson testified that the fair market 
value of the property was $1.25 per square 
foot. He also testified that in his opinion 
the Steel Company had paid more than the 
market value for the Steel Company's pre- 
mises, owing to the necessity of acquiring 
It to enlarge their business. But, making 
allowance for this, he testified that the land 
of the Stcd Company was worth at least 
$1.25 per square foot, and that Mrs. Ryan's 
land was quite as valuable and as well 
adapted for commercial and manufacturing 
development as the land of the Steel Com- 

Mr. Wilson does not know Mrs. Ryan 
personally, and neither he Mr. Smith, Mr 
Blackwell, nor any of the other witnesses 
have any busmess relations, with her. She 
is an aged lady and, being stricken with ill- 

iiess, was not able to leave her house or 
instruct her Counsel during the conduct of 
the inquiry. 

12. In addition to the foregoing, it was 
established by several witnesses that the pro- 
perty was well adapted for a Hotel site, that 
a great concourse of people passed it on the 
thoroughfares bounding it, and that it had 
the advantage, over the Steel property, of 
being on the north or City side of the Canal, 
and thus free from the obstruction arising 
from the frequent opening of the WeUing- 
ton Bridge during the season of navigation. 
It was also established that the labor mar- 
ket was as good, if not better, on the north 
side of the, Canal as on the south side, that 
it would be easy to connect the property 
by a spur with the Grand Trunk Railway, 
and that its being situated nearer to the 
centre of the City than the Steel Company 
property, which was beyond the Bridge on 
the south side of the Canal, gave it a cor- 
responding advantage over that land. 

13- Counsel foi the Proprietor urged 
that it was unfair to take as a standard of 
value the prices realized from small proper- 
ties in the vicinity, only suitable for small 
structures or tenement houses, and with 
limited accessibility and light, and that the 
true test was a comparison of the prices 
realized from the sales of property of the 
like character and those similarly situated 
and of similar adaptability. In addition to 
the Steel Company property, they estab- 
lished that a property somewhat nearer the 
City, namely, at the corner of Queen and 
Common Streets, was sold about four years 
ago to the City for $1.65 per square foot, 
and that the rear portion of this same pro- 
perty was afterwards sold to one, Desor- 
meau, for the purposes of a hotel or restau- 
rant, for the sum of $2.72>4 per square 
foot, though there was not at that point the 
crowds that congregate opposite the pro- 
perty of Mrs. Ryan, at every opening and 
closing of Wellington Bridge. 

14. At the conclusion of the second day 
of the evidence, the Counsel for the Pro- 
prietor stated hat they desired to call the 
particular attention of the Commissioners 
to the true construction of subsection i6 
above referred to (paragraph 5), and sub- 
mitted that it was the obligation of the 
Commissioners to determine the price that 
should be paid for the property according 
to the mark<!t value of land in the vicinity 
of the like character and like adaptabilify 
regardless of the amount specified in the 
first clause of subsection 16 as being applic- 
able tr the improvement of the approaches 
to the Bridge. Subsection 16 may be re- 
pealed : 

•'16. To improre the approachei to Wellington 
bridge on the north »ide. in accordance with the 
plan marked Y and deposited ih the office of the 
City Surveyor, at an approximate cost of $15,672.00. 

The cost of such improvement shall be paid two- 
fifth, by the proprietors of St. Ann's Ward, and the 
other three-fifth, by the city, the amount to be paid 
for the property to be the market value of the pro- 
perty m that vicinity j " 


Counsel submitted that the true meaning 
of these two clauses was that the City was 
authorized to pay to the proprietor the 
market value of the property, and having 
thus acquired it, the City was author- 
jzed to spend, approximately, $15,672.00 in 
improving the approaches, that is to say, in 
reducing the land acquired to proper levels ; 
in laying down drains and proper founda- 
tions, in macadamizing and grading the 
approaches ; in constructing the appropriate 
sidewalks on either sides of these ap- 
proaches leading to the Bridge; in building 
boundary walls ; and it may be in planting 
trees for ihade, in keeping with the park on 
one side of the road— all such constituting 
the improvements contemplated to cost 
$15,672.00, as distinguished from the price 
to be paid for the land, which was to be the 
market price thereof, irrespective of any sum 
set aside for improvements. 

15- It could not be expected that the 
Legislature could, for the value of the 

land, set up two standards, one controlling 
the other and restricting the action of the 
Commissioners, who were sworn truly and 
faithfully to perform their duties. What 
the Legislature intended to set up and did 
set up in plain terms, is that the Proprietor 
should be paid the fair market value of her 
land, that the City would have the power 
to acquire the land on paying that price, 
and that wlien it acquired the land it should 
be authorized to improve it by the expendi- 
ture of a sum specified to be the cost of 

i6. In addition to the testimony referred 
to above, it was established that part of the 
adjoining property of Peter Donovan, Es- 
quire, was sold to the Government of the 
Dominion of Canada in 1877 for the sum 
of $1.10 per square foot, and that a portion 
of the next adjoining property, that of 
Jacob Henry Joseph, Esquire, had been 


purchased by the Government of the Dom- 
inion of Canada, in 1877, for the sum of 
$1.25 per square foot. It was not pre- 
tended that property there had declined 
in value. None of the witnesses examined 
could cite any sale having taken place, 
of property on the banks of the Canal, 
for less than $1.00 per foot, even as 
far out as the City limits, and the pre- 
sent property is situated near the centre of 
the commercial life of Montrea'. On the 
cwitrary, the only property there that had 
been sold in recent years of the like char- 
acter, had sold at, at least 75 per cent, ad- 
vance on the prices of a quarter of a century 
ago. The prices so paid are matt-s of 
public record, not merely in th.> Registry 
offices, but in the Public Records of the 
Dominion of Canada. That being so, Mrs, 
Ryan, alone, for the portion of her land 
proposed to be taken, would at the moderate 
price of $1.23 per square foot, the price 
paid to Mr. Joseph, have been entitled to 


$40,072.50. Mr. Donovan would have been 
entitled to $4,641.25, and leaving out of ac- 
count the other two proprietors to be ex- 
propriated, Mr. McGurn and Mr. Gallery, 
Mrs. Ryan and Mr. Donovan together, 
might most reasonably claim the sum of 

17. In view of these facts and matters 
of public record it is inconceivable that the 
Legislature could have intended that not 
only the improvements could be made, but 
that the land could be purchased for the 
sum of $15,672. The construction of the 
section of the Statute proposed by the Coun- 
sel for the Proprietor at once gave a rea- 
sonable interpretation to the intention of 
the Legislature, and relieved the Commis- 
sioners, if they would be relieved, from the 
embarrassment to which they imagined they 
were subjected. 

18. The case was taken en delibiri on 
nth February, 1904. 




19. No meeting of the Commissioners 
took place until the 15th February, 1904, 
when after a short delihere, it was moved 
by Mr. J. Hamilton Ferns, and seconded 
by Mr. Langevin (Commissioners for the 
City), that the price for Mrs. Ryan's land 
should be 50 cents per square foot. 

An adjournment took place until 24th 
February, 1904, when it was moved by the 
undersigned, Mr. Guerin, and seconded by 
Mr. Ford, that the price should be $1.25 per 
square foot. 

The Recorder thereupon stated that he 
had come to the conclusion, having regard 
to the two standards set up in the clause, 
subsection 16, that the price should be 60 
cents per square foot. 

20. After discussion, the undersigned 
asked that the proceedings of the Commis- 
sion should be adjourned till another day 
in order to give all parties an opportunity 
of fully considering the evidence and arriv- 
ing at a proper conclusion. The under- 

signed, Michael Guerin, moved, seconded 
by Mr. Ford, that the deliberS or advisement 
should be adjourned until another day 
for the purpose of further consideration. 
Messrs. Ferns and Langevin both were 
against this, and the Recorder also gave his 
casting vote against it. 

21. A few minutes before five p.m. on the 
same day, the undersigned and the other 
Commissioners representing the Proprie- 
tors, left the meeting believing that the 
Commission would be again summoned to 
meet, when a report would be submitted and 
they would have the opportunity of further 
discussing the matter and of either signing 
or putting in their dissent, but the under- 
signed have since ascertained that after they 
left, the Recorder and the two Assessors 
representing the City, sent to an office up- 
stairs in the City Hall, for a report which 
had previously been prepared under the 
instructions of the majority, but which was 
never submitted to the undersigned, and 



that in the absence of the undersigned they 
proceeded to sign the said report and to 
cause it to be delivered at the City Clerk's 
Office, as appeared from the endorsation 
thereon, at four minutes to five o'clock. 
The undersigned never saw the said Report, 
or a copy of it, until to-day. 

-.'2. The majority of the said Commis- 
sioners, in arriving at the conclusion as 
above indicated, have deprived the Proprie- 
tor of the opportunity of urging the just 
grounds upon which the Commission might, 
on the evidence, come to a conclusion to 
grant a much larger sum to the Proprietor 
than that stated in the majority report, and 
also of the opportunity for asserting and 
demonstrating that the true standard of 
value of the property was its market value, 
uncontrolled by the cf ideration that a sum 
fixed approximately, was authorized for im- 

23. From a letter addressed by the Re- 
corder to yourself, and concurred in by the 

two City Assessors, it appears that the repre- 
sentatives of the City found it necessary to 
explain the contents of their Report. In one 
paragraph the .Recorder says : 

" The Commissioners were perplexed to a certain 
extent by the fact that the law autliorizing this ex- 
propriation fixed two standards which proved to be 
different. In the iirst place the improvements were 
sanctioned at an approximate cost of $15,672, but 
this was immediately followed by a clause which 
sUted that the price to be paid for the property was 
" the market value of the property in the vicinity." 
The Commissioners have found a discrepancy be- 
tween these two standards, and while feeling bound 
to a certain degree by the first limitation, as an 
estimate approved by the Legislature, have never- 
theless striven to do justice to the indemniUries in 
the terms of the second standard." 

From this statement it is clear that the 
Recorder and the City Assessors felt that in 
fixing a market value of the property, they 
were " bound to a certain degree by the first 
limitation" (that is the amount stated for 
the cost of the improvement), "as an esti- 
mate approved by the Legislature." The 

Legislature has made no estimate whatever 
of the market value of the land and the 
Recorder and the Commissioners on behalf 
of the City, have treated the sum stated as 
costs of improvements as the estimate made 
by the Legislature of the market value of 
the land. If the sum stated as the cost of 
the improvement, is the estimate of the 
Legislature, of the market value of the land, 
there would be no sum left applicable to 
the making of the improvements. The Re- 
corder and the Commissioners for the City 
have labored under the impression that thf y 
were to apply two standards in valuing the 
land — standards which they, themselves, 
admit to be " different," and between which 
there is a " discrepancy." It is respectfully 
submitted that the only standard provided 
by the Legislature is the market value of 
the land, and that the Commissioners should 
have completely disregarded the sum men- 
tioned as being applicable to the costs of 
improvements. Had further discussion of 


the Report been permitted, the misconception 
of the majority of the Commissioners in this 
respect might have been removed. In fact 
the undersigned were deprived of the op- 
portunity of considering the Report, which 
was never submitted to them, and of point- 
ing out that in other respects the said Com- 
mjssioners have fallen into error of law in 
statmg that "the residue of the above de- 
scribed piece of land could be acquired bv 
the City of Montreal, for the sum of 
$637.20, making in all $i9.872,"-being also 
at 60 cents per foot. The undersigned are 
advised that no such right or option apper- 
tains by law to the City. 

24. Moreover, the majority of the said 
Commissioners, in arriving at a conclusion, 
not only failed to submit any report for the 
approval or dissent of their fellow-commis- 
sioners, but they also put aside all the 
evidence taken in the case, and substituted 
their own personal opinions for the sworn 
and uncontradicted testimony of several of 



the most respectable men in the City of 
Montreal. They have substituted their per- 
gonal opinions, though none of th^m can 
claim to be experts, that the market value 
of Mrs Ryan's land is only 60 cents per 

Sr Ir Vr *"' °^ *^ E^^rts for Sle 
L>ty, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Chartrand (of 
whom It can be said that neither failed in 

ftTr *° '^' '^''''' '"'^^^^t)' ^^o valued 
tl T .^' *°°*' "^'"S ^ difference 

foot, or $6,411.60; and not only did thev 
disregard the evidence of the witnesses for 
*e Gty. but they disregarded the evidence 
of the sales to the Government above re- 

Irt '°.'n ^'-'^ ^^ $i-25-the sales to 
the Steel Company at $1.73 and $245 per 
square foot, and they also disregarded the 
weighty testimony of Mr. James Reid Wil- 

Blackwell-all of whom are connected with 

manufacturing enterprises-two of them 

with the great enterprises in the immediate 


vicinity, and who not only knew the market 
values of land in the vicinity, but were 
competent to judge of the adaptability of 
this particular property for commercial and 
manufacturing purposes. They have also 
disregarded the testimony of the Estate 
Agents, based upon their personal experi- 
ence, and of Mr. Tansey, who is a large 
estate owner in the ward. 

25. If the Commissioners may put aside 
all the testimony of respectable men on both 
sides of the case then t' ■ taking of evidence 
is a mere farce and an expense to both the 
proprietors and to the City. It would be 
far easier to dispense with the useless cere- 
mony of administering the oath and hearnig 
testimony at length, and to say at once to 
the Commissioners for the City who are, 
too, the paid employees of the City : " You 
are masters of the situation; you have the 
right to give us what you please ; we are in 
your hands and at your mercy." It is bad 
enough that in an arbitration proceeding' 


the proprietor should be handicapped from 
the outset, by a majority vote against him, 
but it is intolerable that that majority 
should clandestinely prepare a report, sign 
it and forward it to the City Clerk without 
ever giving the opportunity to their co- 
f^ Commissioners to examine it, and that in 

arriving at their conclusions they should 
treat, as an utter nullity, the whole of the 
j evidence given under oath, and adopt two 

j standards of valuing, which they themselves 

admit are " different," and which the under- 
signed are advised, are utterly at variance 
with the law. 

26. The undersigned respectfully submit 
that the Report and Proceedings of the 
majority are not only illegal and should be 
set aside, but that they constitute a great 
injustice to the Proprietor, from which she 
■' should be relieved. 

Will you have the goodness to have this 
communication brought to the attention of 
Ilis Worship the Mayor, the Chairman of 

the Finance Committee, and the City At- 
We have the honour to be, Sir, 
Your obedient servants, 

Commissioners for 
Dame Margaret Brennan, 
(Mrs M.P.Ryan.) 

The undersigned, who sat as Commis- 
sioners in the cases of Peter Donovan, 
Michael McGum and Daniel Gallery, and 
who were present at all the sitting of the 
Commission in connection with the City's 
acquisition of the properties of Mr. Dono- 
van and Mrs. Ryan, concurred in the fore- 
going statement. 

(Sgd.) J. H. KENNEDY, 
Commissioner for Daniel Gallery 
and Michael McGum. 
(Sgd.) G. W. PARENT. 
Commissioner for Peter Donovan, 
Daniel Gallery and Michael McGum. 


I first saw the contents of the said Report 
by reading a copy of it on Monday after- 
noon, 29th February, 1904. 

(Sgd.) G. W. PARENT. 

(Another Proprietor.) 

Mr. Donovan's land is No. 1413 on the 
Official Plan, and fronts on Wellington 
Street on the one side, and on the street 
bordering the Canal on the other. It is 
vacant land and exceptionally well situated. 
The City propose to acquire ^,7I3 square 
feet of it. The award of the majority of 
the Commissioners in his case allowed 65 
cents per square foot. His land adjoins 
Mrs. Ryan's, and the testimony, as well as 
the observations, applicable to the one, are 
applicable to the other. 

His Counsel made the same exceptions 
to the jurisdiction and the same suggestions 

as to the true construction of the Statutes 
as in the case of Mrs. Ryan. 

Mr. Donovan himself filed a protest sub- 
stantially in the same terms as that of Mrs. 

As stated above, paragraph i6, Mr. 
Donovan sold a portion of the same 
block of land to the Federal Govern- 
ment in 1877 for the sum of $1.10 a foot, 
and, in the same year, Mr. J. H. Joseph 
sold a portion of the adjoining land to 
the Government at $1.25 per square foot — 
nearly double the price allowed Mr. Dono- 
van now by the majority of the Com- 
missioners, though the pieces then taken 
were further removed from the Bridge 
than that now sought to be acquired, 
which is the nearest piece of private pro- 
perty to the(lft3lRh side of the Wellington 
Bridge. There is no proof of a decrease 
in values of land near the Canal: on the 
contrary, there are abundant instances of 


Some of the witnesses (including all 
the witnesses for the City) thought that 
this piece of hnd had an advantn^'c over 
Mrs. Ryan's, in that it adjoined the road 
that separated the Canal from it, whereas 
*^ others considered that the greater advan- 

tage lay with Mrs. Ryan's land on account 
of its size, accessibility and general adapt- 
ability for a large establishment, commercial 
j or manufacturing, or for a hotel. Three 

J witnesses, and three only, were examined 

1 on behalf of the City to value Mr. Dono- 

i van's property, namely, Messrs. Nelson, 

' Lavigne and Chartrand. They appraised it 

I it at a market value of $i.oo per square 

foot. The witnesses for the Proprietor ap- 
praised it at from $1.25 to $1.50. The over- 
I whelming weight of testimony in this, as 

* in Mrs. Ryan's case, was that the land 

taken at its market value was worth, at 
least, $1.25 per square foot. The Commis- 
sioners allowed 65 cents per square foot, 
" perplexed " and controlled as they were 


by what they call two standards, the legis- 
lative valuation and the "market value." 
(See paragraph 23, ante.) Two weights 
and two measures I 

The two Commissioners named by Mr. 
Donovan — ^proceeding under protest — were 
overruled in their proposal that the sum 
to be paid was the "market value," and 
that the evidence clearly showed that the 
market value was, at least,, $1.25 per square 

In other words, the majority of the Com- 
missioners, all employees of the City, none 
of whom can claim to be an expert in mar- 
ket values of real estate, have put aside the 
sworn testimony of all the witnesses — those 
called by the City, as well as those of the 
Proprietor, — including men of the highest 
standing in the City of Montreal, with the 
most accurate knowledge of the locality 
and of the adaptability of the land in ques- 
tion for development, and have substituted 
their own individual opinions therefor. 

Mr. Donovan's (.'oniniissioners were 
Daniel Ford and ' ! W. Parent, Esquires, 
and they were s lujecteci to ihe same treat- 
ment as the Coi, n'issioners in Mrs. Ryan's 

If such a state of things can exist, there 
is no security for the land owner in the City 
of Montreal, against rapacious aggression — 
all the more intolerable because there is no 
appeal from the homologated report of a 
majority of the Commissioners.